So far, since the Democrats started trying to reform the health care disindustry, the MSM has treated us to a never ending stream of process stories, gloom and doom outlooks for the deficit, and most of all, credulously trumpeting the most outlandish and patently absurd conspiracy theories about what is in or going to be in the bill.
I have seen only one person on television actually discuss what was ACTUALLY IN one of the draft health reform bills, and he wasn't a journalist. It was Jon Stewart. Now I don't glue myself to the television, except to watch "Bones" (I really wish they would bring Zach back on the show). So it is possible I have missed some substantive discussions of the proposed bill, perhaps on Olberman or Maddow.
Jon Stewart wasn't even trying to read from the actual bill, but ripped out the page that Betsy IcantstopMcCoughingupbullshit was claiming proved her point and Jon proved the opposite.
Can we please stop reading about "Death Panels" and "Waiting lists" and "Killing Grandma" and tell the American Public what is actually in the EFFING BILL!!!!!!!
Lots of people say in scary tones that the bill is over a thousand pages long and wave a big binder to prove their point. Well, crack the binder.
There are four main ways that insurance companies screw their policy holders (or future policy holders). One is to deny coverage at all because of a pre-existing condition. Two is to terminate coverage because of alleged dishonesty on the application. Three is to jack up the price of the policy so the practical effect is to make coverage impossible to afford. Four, and probably the most common, is to deny claims that should be covered. Most often it is for penny ante reasons. My insurance company did it because they said my policy was not verified because it lacked my children's social security numbers. I needed their social security numbers to get the policy in the first place two years ago!!! So the insurance company lost the information (Yeah right!) and screwed me for it. It eventually got paid, but not after delaying for another three months and now our pediatrician thinks we are deadbeats.
(COMMENT because of length, I am going to split this up)
- I want to hear about how the insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. You can outlaw it all you want, but using the government to advance your own political party is against the law too and it was done all the time during the Bush Administration. The problem was there is no penalty for violating the Hatch Act. So if you violated it, just shut your trap or become suddenly forgetful and avoid running afoul of perjury, which does have penalties.
How will it be enforced? What sort of auditing procedures will there be? Without auditing the insurance companies will continue to do it based on a statistical basis that the amount of money they save will be greater than the chances that an overworked and overtaxed enforcement agency will prosecute them. Who would enforce that law? The Justice Department? Will it only be enforced during Democratic administrations? We saw very clearly that Republican administrations do not enforce civil rights laws. In fact they usually try and turn them on their head.
Would it be a separate agency? Who would run the agency and for how long? What would their budget be and how long would the appointees be in place? You can see what kind of shenanigans could take place there. Just look at the FDA, which made it standard practice not to enforce the law and rely on asking meat packers and similar industries to politely to be cleaner. Same with the EPA.
Would a private right of action be allowed to give individuals the right to sue the insurance company for coverage? State or federal AG's have limited budgets and cannot be constantly going after every malfeasance. They just don't have the budget. Murder is illegal but people still do it. Does anyone think that if denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is made illegal that the practice will magically stop? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. Or maybe you believe that someone really was going to destroy the Brooklyn bridge with a blow torch.
Many consumer fraud laws allow for a private right of action to allow consumers that would like to enforce the law themselves the ability to do it. Would the private right of action provide for penalties, and most importantly fee shifting? Insurance companies with massive law firms on retainer can wait out individuals unless there is a prospect of paying the consumer's legal fees. Would they be allowed to sue in state court, where it is easier and there are courthouses in every county. Or will it be in federal court where there are only one courthouse per state in some cases. Two in very populous states. That's a long way to schlep to go to court.
Would such cases be streamlined? Standard discovery schedules for breach of contract cases are about five months. When you are talking about health care five months can be a long time to wait. What would the discovery rules be like? If you don't have all the documents you need to win a case, your chances that the defendant will generously provide you with the documentary proof that they denied your coverage are slim and none. This situation is more likely to be very important in cases where the insurance company offers coverage but at such a price as to be prohibitively expensive. You would need paper discovery to prove that the insurance company was charging more than a similarly situated consumer in the same city or state.
Would there be standard filing fee rates? Superior court costs $200 for law division cases.
Would the penalties be the same or get progressively larger as the violations add up? Would the insurance company get to clean it's slate every year? If this is the case, insurance companies would bean count it again. If the penalty is five thousand dollars but the savings in not covering the individual (with a condition like diabetes) would probably be ten thousand, then the insurance company will deny them every time. The the penalties be paid by the corporation or by the individual denying the coverage? You wouldn't want to penalize the peon that is under pressure from his/her supervisor to deny a claim, but you wouldn't mind if the CEO gets nailed. Would there be jail time at some point? Would the penalties differ if the consumer died while waiting for coverage? Would wrongful death suits be available in such circumstances?
to date, the main stream media has addressed NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS!!!!!! All they do is count votes and pass on pants on fire hyperbolic BS that they never bother to fact check.